Appeal No. 2003-0158
Application No. 09/514,570
combining Barakai with DeBan. Moreover, Barakai is unrelated to ATMs or the cashing
of negotiable instruments. So, it is difficult to see why the artisan, viewing a reference
for verifying whether a card number appears on a black list, would take this teaching of
a database for indicating the status of various card numbers and somehow apply it to a
system having a database of payor information (assuming that DeBan even has a
database of payor information, as claimed), in order to make a decision as to whether
or not to dispense cash based on information in such a payor information database.
Similarly, Hoffman, relating to the use of PIN codes in a process for confirming
an identity, provides no motivation that would have led the artisan to modify anything in
DeBan in order to result in the instant claimed subject matter.
For the reasons, supra, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 36, or of claims
37-53 which contain similar limitations, under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The Bezy reference is relied on by the examiner in combination with the other
references for rejecting claims 40, 43, 44, 46, 47 and 51-53. However, Bezy deals with
verifying and guaranteeing funds at a payor’s bank to make sure there are sufficient
funds to pay a merchant. But we find no teaching, in Bezy, of the claimed “payor
information database” and the identification of a payor. Further, we find nothing therein
that supplies the deficiency noted supra with regard to DeBan.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007